The Evergreen has treated us to two “news” articles about pastor Stan Hudson’s lecture series “In the Beginning” (at the Gladish Center). The stories present it as a balanced treatment of scientific and religious views on the origin of the earth, of life, and of man. Posted on the web is the description of a related TV show and some discussion guides for teachers. It’s clear from these (and from Hudson’s own publicity) that he is promoting “young-earth creationism” that relies on the Christian Bible as factual history. In his teachers’ guides (let’s hope these never get used in an actual, you know, school) he compares scientific and biblical accounts of topics such as the age of the earth, whether dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, etc.
He never draws the obvious conclusion — that most of these biblical accounts have no factual basis. Instead, he offers tortured interpretations designed to cast doubt on the science, or to claim that it in fact it supports the Bible. For example, he suggests that radiometric dating may give a false age for the earth (4.5 billion instead of 6 thousand years) because “some unknown process sped up the decay rates of rocks, giving them the false appearance of great age.”
This type of young-earth creationism simply can’t be squared with major findings and principles of biology, physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy. It’s disappointing to see naïve articles like this in a student newspaper at a major science-oriented research university. The writers (and their editors) apparently haven’t learned the critical-thinking skills a university education should provide. Let’s hope we don’t see similar “commercials” for Hudson’s next series, “In the End.”
professor emeritus, anthropology
There is an old saying that two heads are better than one. When it comes to the four heads that compromise The Daily Evergreen Editorial Board, however, then perhaps more heads aren’t beneficial. For starters, to compare a march that deals with justice to students waiting in line for a basketball game is simply ludicrous and ridiculous. Do the weather conditions really make them comparable when the reasons behind them are completely different?
The four of you have really confirmed to me that the Three Stooges are back with their additional member, because to say, “We highly doubt Arizona lawmakers will care about what students did on a snowy Sunday afternoon in another state,” is just an obvious and unnecessary statement that just shows how unaware you guys truly are. The march was not for Arizona lawmakers. If the four of you would have done your research, and, I don’t know, maybe interviewed the people who attended the march, then perhaps at least one of you would have understood that the march was to support the people of Arizona, to say, “Hey, I’m here for you!”
Also, just to clarify since we already established that the four of you together have a hard time understanding things, let me just point out that the opinionated students who attended the march did in fact get off of their computers and were unplugged from the Internet. We weren’t sitting behind our computers ranting about someone we disagreed with. Now, if only I could say the same about the four of you.
Those who attended the march did more than just march. We had guest speakers and march participants share their thoughts about this bill and how it does in fact affect them.
The most disturbing piece in this article is that you guys had the audacity to define what Cougar Pride should look like. Our student activism doesn’t need the makeover, The Daily Evergreen Editorial Board does. Every person at WSU is different. Students come here from different countries as well as for different reasons. You would think that four brains could at least think that far!
sophomore, communication and digital technology and culture